coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Szydłowiec, Poland.
7.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery. On 18 January 1995 the Przysucha District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged him with robbery and detained him on remand on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question.
8.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was indicted before the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).
9.  The trial began on 17 August 1995. On 11 July 1996 the Radom Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment. On 16 April 1997, on the applicant's appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended that judgment in part and reduced the sentence to 3 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.
10.  On an unknown date the applicant was detained in Radom Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). On 18 September 1995 he was placed in a cell of 12.49 square metres together with 5 other prisoners, all of whom were heavy smokers. There was no running water, no sewage system, no toilet and insufficient natural lighting. The glow-lamps were switched on from morning to night. The cell lacked adequate ventilation. The detainees were given two buckets of drinking water and one extra bucket, which was used as a toilet by all of them.
11.  The applicant many times complained about the conditions of his detention, in particular the size of his cell and the fact that he was detained together with heavy smokers. He also complained that he was deprived of any opportunity to exercise in the open air since detainees were only allowed a daily walk in a well in the prison building.
12.  On 12 March and 28 May 1996, in letters to the applicant, the Governor of Radom Remand Centre acknowledged that the prison conditions were difficult since Radom Remand Centre was one of the oldest prisons in Poland. He added that the prison was constantly overcrowded by 20%.
13.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant was released from prison.
14.  On 15 March 1996 the applicant's wrote his first letter to the Commission. The letter was opened by the authorities. In the top left hand corner of the letter there was a stamp, which read: “censored” (“ocenzurowano”). The stamp was followed by an illegible signature.
15.  Following the communication of the application, the Government enquired into the circumstances surrounding the censoring of the applicant's letter. They found that an employee of the Radom Regional Court had stamped the applicant's letter “censored”. They maintained that that had happened by mistake since the employee was an inexperienced clerk who had been unfamiliar with the rules governing the censorship of correspondence.
7.  The applicant is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1944 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Maidstone.
8.  The applicant and his wife frequently travelled between various European countries. On 16 April 1997, the Chief Constable of South Wales authorised the installation of covert recording devices at the applicant's cottage and this was carried out on 23 April 1997. Authority for a further 28 days' surveillance was granted on 14 May 1997.
9.  Over 160 hours of tapes were obtained between the period of 25 April to 9 June 1997, on which latter date the applicant and his wife were arrested. The transcripts of the taped conversations made up the bulk of the case against the applicant.
10.  At trial, the applicant's defence alleged that the recorded discussions, which occurred while he and the others concerned were under the influence of drugs, were “drug-crazed ramblings” and challenged their admissibility. A “voir dire” took place from 28 May to 1 June 1998, during which the defence made submissions concerning the procedure for authorisation of the surveillance and seeking inter alia to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material under sections 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). By agreement, the transcript evidence was reduced from five to two files and an agreed schedule was adopted by all counsel concerning the occasions on which the conversations occurred at the same time as drug taking. In summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed their attention to the fact that the supposedly incriminating statements taped at the cottage were or may have been the product of the participants' intoxicated state and that it was for them to assess whether despite the drugs the defendants were expressing rational, genuine thoughts, real ideas, plans or arrangements.
11.  On 15 June 1998, the applicant was convicted of charges inter alia of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and possession of controlled drugs in connection with importation of marijuana and cocaine from overseas. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. A confiscation order was imposed on him on 24 September 1998 in the sum of 50,169.18 pounds sterling (GBP).
12.  On 10 November 1999, a single judge of the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to appeal against sentence and refused leave to appeal against conviction, noting that no satisfactory or sufficient reason had been given for the 11 month delay in lodging the application. The applicant's renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 17 October 2000.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Brwinów, Poland.
5.  On 15 March 1985 the applicant instituted before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) civil proceedings concerning an inheritance dispute (o zachowek) against Mr A.Ł. The applicant sought a part of his late mother's estate.
6.  Between April 1985 and January 1993 the court held over twenty hearings.
7.  Between March 1988 and February 1990 as well as between June 1991 and December 1992 no hearings were held.
8.  The hearing held on 11 January 1993 was adjourned.
9.  On 25 April 1994 the court, sitting in camera, requested two expert opinions.
10.  On 3 November 1994, 29 March and 26 June 1995 the Warsaw District Court obtained expert opinions.
11.  On 30 January 1995 the court exempted the applicant from the court‑fees.
12.  On 4 August 1995 the court, sitting in camera, decided to prepare another expert opinion. The defendant appealed against this decision. On 8 February 1996 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant's appeal against this decision was finally dismissed on 24 April 1996 by the Warsaw Regional Court.
13.  On 11 October 1995 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.
14.  On 5 August 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.
15.  Between 11 January 1993 and 13 December 1996 no hearings were held.
16.  In 1997 the court held six hearings. Some of them were adjourned because the parties were not properly notified of them.
17.  On 13 February and 6 April 1998 the court held hearings.
18.  At the hearing held 25 June 1998 the applicant extended his claim.
19.  On 26 June 1998 the court decided to transfer the case to the Warsaw Regional Court because of the increased value of the claim.
20.  At the hearing held on 14 May 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings with regard to the applicant's sister.
21.  On 14 October 1999 the applicant extended his claim and applied to the court to give an interim ruling. On 18 September 2000 the court dismissed his application for the interim ruling. The applicant's appeal was dismissed on 1 March 2001 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
22.  On 26 October 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing at which it heard both parties.
23.  In November 2001 the court, sitting in camera, requested another expert opinion.
24.  In July and August 2002 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that “due to the delay in the proceedings the case is going to be under constant supervision of the President”.
25.  Subsequently, a hearing scheduled for 13 March 2003 was adjourned at the applicant's request. The new date was set for 23 March 2003.
26.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 December 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1990.
8.  On 21 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. It also informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.
9.  Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
10.  On 1 September 2000, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
2)  Application no. 41935/98
11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 June 1983, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.
12.  By a decision of 8 October 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1986.
13.  On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring them to vacate the premises.
14.  On 21 April 1995, it informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.
15.  Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
16.  On 3 June 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
 
 
3)  Application no. 42732/98
17.  In a writ served on M.A. (the tenant) on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed her of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1988 and summoned her to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.
18.  By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1991.
19.  On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
20.  On 21 April 1995, it informed her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.
21.  Between 2 May 1995 and 27 November 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
22.  On 3 August 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Naples.
7.  She is the owner of a flat in Casoria (Naples), which she had let to A.I.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Casoria Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 22 January 1988, which was made enforceable on 31 September 1988, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 February 1989.
10.  On 15 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 3 April 1990, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 April 1990.
12.  Between 12 April 1990 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 6 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rome.
5.  A.S. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to G.C. and then to his wife L.C.
6.  In a registered letter of 25 June 1991, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 December 1991, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 10 April 1992, which was made enforceable on 23 April 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1993.
9.  On 9 December 1993, the applicant became the owner of the flat and continued the enforcement proceedings.
10.  On 4 January 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.
11.  On 4 February 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 March 1994.
12.  Between 22 March 1994 and 16 September 1999, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 13 November 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.
14.  On 4 October 1999, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 17 May 2000.
15.  On 3 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kecskemét, Hungary.
5.  The applicant was dismissed from his employment. On 28 August 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court claiming severance pay. On 15 November 1995 the Labour Court held a hearing. On that occasion the applicant modified his action and also requested that his dismissal be annulled.
6.  On 6 February 1996 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant's request to be reinstated in his employment, holding that his claim in this connection had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit.
7.  On 19 June 1996 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the partial decision of 6 February 1996. On 12 November 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition for review.
8.  As regards the remainder of the action, the Budapest Labour Court held further hearings on 27 May and 1 July 1998. On the latter date it awarded the applicant in the region of 130,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest by way of severance pay and outstanding wages.
9.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 15 January, 14 April and 23 June 1999.
10.  On 2 July 1999 the Regional Court increased the award in a partial judgment. On 2 September 1999 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 7 October 1999 the Supreme Court ordered that the petition be completed. On 25 February 2000 it appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the applicant. 
On 3 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed, in a partial decision, the applicant's petition for review. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 February 2001.
11.  Meanwhile, on 22 September 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings conducted in respect of some claims still outstanding, pending the review proceedings.
12.  Subsequent to the decision of 3 January 2001, the Regional Court resumed the proceedings. A hearing scheduled for June 2001 was adjourned as the notification sent to the applicant had been returned to the court undelivered. The Regional Court's further enquiry about the applicant's address was unsuccessful. Consequently, on 12 September 2001 the court suspended the proceedings. On 12 March 2002 the proceedings were discontinued, pursuant to section 137 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a six months' period had elapsed from the date of the order suspending the case.
4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to F.S.A.
6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 October 1984, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
7.  By a decision of 23 October 1984, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 23 October 1985.
8.  On 12 February 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
9.  On 3 April 1986 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 May 1986.
10.  Between 9 May 1986 and 29 January 1999, the bailiff made forty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
11.  On 28 October 1998, the applicant instituted proceedings against the tenant in the Rome magistrate's court. Pursuant to Article 1591 of the Italian Civil Code, he sought the reimbursement of the damages caused by the tenant in terms of loss of rent.
12.  On 21 September 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
13.  On 26 November 1999, the applicant discontinued the civil proceedings instituted against the tenant. According to the applicant, he had had no prospects of obtaining adequate compensation in the light of the provisions of Law no. 421 of 9 December 1998 which limited the compensation claimable by the owner to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease, proportionally increased according to the cost of living, plus 20%, along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Rome.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.F.
6.  In a registered letter of 22 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 January 1989, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 8 June 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1990.
10.  On 5 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 30 July 1990, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 October 1990.
12.  Between 3 October 1990 and 1 April 2000, the bailiff made forty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  On 4 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Terni.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Scala (Salerno), which he had let to G.C. and R.F.
6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 17 January 1991, the applicant informed them that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  He summoned the tenants to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 14 June 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1993.
9.  On 2 August 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
10.  On 7 October 1993, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 October 1993.
11.  On 21 October 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. After that date and until the 29 February 2000, the bailiff did not make any attempt to recover possession because the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 29 February 2000, the applicant, reaching a friendly agreement with the tenants, recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which it had let to S.S.
5.  In a registered letter of 31 May 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
6.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 June 1986, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 28 November 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 November 1987.
9.  On 4 December 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 24 December 1987, it informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 February 1988.
11.  Between 5 February 1988 and 15 December 2000, the bailiff made sixty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 16 January 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
4.  The applicant was born in 1907 and lives in Piacenza.
5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to A.B.
6.  In a registered letter of 18 April 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 15 April 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.
8.  By a decision of 8 April 1986, which was made enforceable on 16 September 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 April 1987.
9.  On 1 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
10.  On 18 May 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 May 1987.
11.  Between 29 May 1987 and 16 November 2000, the bailiff made fifty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
12.  On 28 March 2001, the applicant sold the flat to the tenant.